FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said.

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this. That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.

Who is deciding our health choices for us? Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.

I think the issue for a lot of people when arguing the bolded point is that it isn't about a "health choice". If the baby is deemed by a doctor to be healthy, and the mother isn't expected to have any complications during the gestation period or during delivery process, is it really a health issue? What, if any, is the health issue in that situation?

Ignoring situations of rape, I can totally understand why some view that as nothing more than a blinder to shield the fact that the only reason someone is receiving an abortion is to not have the child. That baby could be carried to term and adopted by a couple who for whatever can't conceive a child of their own.

As people already posted it's silly and irresponsable to use abortion as a late anti pregnancy measure, but it is a right that should be granted for any variety of medical and psychological reasons (victims of rape getting pregnant for example), and yes, it's absolutely and totally necessary to regulate it.

No argument. I think the subject here, though is in those vast grey areas that don't neatly fit into the categories you listed above. I've told the story before; my daughter was "diagnosed" with Down's syndrome during pregnancy and we were "offered" the option of abortion. It would clearly have been for "medical reasons" and would have absolutely been my wife's choice (meaning, all perfectly legal and reasonable). That girl will be turning 18 on Saturday, in June will be graduating with honors from one of the top five high schools in the COUNTRY, and already has a free ride (via merit scholarships) to three of the four schools she's heard back from so far. I don't say that to argue that the "medical reasons" aren't valid, or that my wife shouldn't have had the choice back then, but to say that this stuff is not as simple as words like "should" and "right" imply.

If we're really as interested in the health and well-being of our mothers as we say, we need to be prepared for that discussion of "well, uh, we were wrong about that diagnosis of Down's". Or, conversely, be prepared to accept that the abortion was done because of the "medical reason" that the dad turned out to be a cheating piece of shit that has no intention of supporting this kid.

This I find somewhat problematic. Unless we are talking about some condition that makes it rather certain the baby will not survive childbirth or might die soon after, should a doctor really offer a choice of abortion? Since people with for example Down's or cerebral palsy can after live a long, healthy and happy life. I find it dehumanizing and it also reminds me of the concept of "designer babies". You can correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I feel most parents will love their children the same even though they might be born with a medical condition.

And of course, happy birthday to your daughter.

Nothing to correct; I think you are as right as rain. That was basically our thought process when we - my wife, let's be honest - didn't even consider abortion for even a second. The doctor - a Christian, ironically, who would not have done the procedure himself for his own ethical reasons - offered, she looked at me, nodded, and turned back and said "that won't be necessary". We had already had two miscarriages, and we were going to love that kid hell or high water. She had had an abortion before (that I didn't know about at the time) and she wasn't going to go through that again, for any reason that wasn't totally out of her control.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said.

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this. That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.

Who is deciding our health choices for us? Because it doesn't appear to be women and their doctors.

I think the issue for a lot of people when arguing the bolded point is that it isn't about a "health choice". If the baby is deemed by a doctor to be healthy, and the mother isn't expected to have any complications during the gestation period or during delivery process, is it really a health issue? What, if any, is the health issue in that situation?

Ignoring situations of rape, I can totally understand why some view that as nothing more than a blinder to shield the fact that the only reason someone is receiving an abortion is to not have the child. That baby could be carried to term and adopted by a couple who for whatever can't conceive a child of their own.

This. If the mother's life is in danger than that is definitely a decision she needs to make with her doctor. If not and she just doesn't want the baby for what ever reason (rape/incest, etc. you could still put the kid up for adoption but I could see why the choice would be made) then it's not a women's right's issue at that point. It all goes back to when does life begin. I believe life starts at conception so any abortion at any time equates to killing a human being.

Sad that the only female perspective here is immediately dismissed/ignored.

It went about as I suspected, really. It is much easier to blame women as a whole - those baby killers who are obviously disturbed if they don't have instant maternal instincts - than it is to look inward at our own behaviors and ask if we are in any way contributing to the problem or have any ability to ameliorate any solution.

Women have always been looked upon in this way. It is our bodies, our lives, our health, our families, our education, our occupation, our psyches that have born (pardon the pun) the brunt of the burden in this regard. I held no illusions things would be any different here. You should've seen the reactions to the woman who had the audacity to write the posts to begin with.

But, as one of the people that responded significantly to the post, there was absolutely no blame to women. Let's be clear, the "women's perspective" was not at all "ignored" or "dismissed". As Bosk said, though, it was a controversial and some would say radical (and I would say, contradictory) position to take. "Respecting a position" doesn't mean "accepting with no scrutiny, analysis or critical thinking". I think I am as understanding and as accepting of the woman's point of view on this as any man can be. That doesn't mean I have to accept every aspect of every woman's opinion, no matter how adversarial.

Her position literally runs afoul of the law, of society, of many feminists, and in fact, the most recent victory for women, celebrated across the world over the last 24 (or so) months. We're allowed to comment on that without the disdain and condescension of "Men!".

Can I ask you, given your post, what WOULD have been an acceptable response?

Women are almost 100% blamed for abortions, aren't they? I find it amusing that when the shoe is put on the other foot the response is so knee-jerk. But whatever. As I said in my OP, I expected the defensiveness about it.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said. Even if she didn't need to go to that extreme, is the point so lost in the weeds that you can't at least entertain the notion behind the POINT of saying it? Because women are always to blame. Even in the extreme cases of rape and incest. What was she wearing, how was she acting, what did SHE DO to cause it?

But yeah, that article read like it was written by a freshman in high school who couldn't possibly have any understanding of what she was writing about. We should dismiss her POV entirely because it's irrelevant and so poorly done.

Pardon me for not wishing to post any more about my own personal opinions on the subject. LoL.

But that's a false equivalency; the very argument put forth is that "IT'S A WOMAN'S BODY, IT'S HER CHOICE." It's not incongruous or insensitive to suggest that with a choice, with authority, comes responsibility and accountability. It works both ways, to be sure. It's MY choice how I approach a woman, sexually (or romantically, if you will) and I therefore take responsibility and accountability if that approach is offensive in ANY way, and in recent months that accountability has expanded into having my livelihood impacted and perhaps criminal sanctions. I accept that. Why is it different here?

"Blame" doesn't factor into it; it's a simple and necessary facet of a democratic society: with the choice (the good) comes the responsibility of those choices (the bad). That's not "misogyny", that's the rule of law. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I have not in any sense of the word cast "blame" on a woman for her choice. It's her right and her prerogative, nothing more.

FWIW, if you are on Twitter and look for that woman's post, you'll see the vast women were applauding what she said.

This is totally meaningless.

OMG the irony of this. That it resonated with a majority of women while pissing men off is EXACTLY the point.

Huh? Since when does twitter responses make points that I should consider as meaningful on a political hot topic? Sorry but there is no irony of me finding twitter to be meaningless.

Ah...I read that as that it resonated with a majority of women was meaningless, not that it was a post on Twitter. Sorry, I thought the resident Twitter hater was Stadler. Haha

I actually like twitter, maybe my favorite social media, but I'm not a fan of following people's opinions on any social media platform and when it comes to that, I find twitter to be the worst. So I'm kind of a a twitter lover/hater, but I have a general dislike of social media political garbage.

I don't think that should be ignored/dismissed because of knee-jerk reactions to a couple "hurtful" sentences.

I didn't see any "hurtful sentences." I'm not sure who would be "hurt" by reading anything in that article.

I couldn't think of a better word. I was referring to the article saying pregnancies are 100% men's faults, which is a statement that will immediately rile up a lot of people. It's....provoking? Offensive? It rustles jimmies? This is a situation when I can't exactly remember the right word, but it's a statement that evokes a strong negative response in people very quickly.

And personally, I find that to be very worthy of discussion, especially when it's the only voice coming from a demographic in this situation. I really don't necessarily agree with it either, but I think there's a lot of good in trying to understand why people think that way.

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

I don't think that should be ignored/dismissed because of knee-jerk reactions to a couple "hurtful" sentences.

I didn't see any "hurtful sentences." I'm not sure who would be "hurt" by reading anything in that article.

I couldn't think of a better word. I was referring to the article saying pregnancies are 100% men's faults, which is a statement that will immediately rile up a lot of people. It's....provoking? Offensive? It rustles jimmies? This is a situation when I can't exactly remember the right word, but it's a statement that evokes a strong negative response in people very quickly.

I can't speak for others, but for me it's just that that opinion piece is laughably misguided. It does have a few good points, but they are so buried beneath the pile of self-righteousness, empty but inflammatory rhetoric, and failure to make a cogent argument that I don't find them worth addressing.

And when it is posted with an introduction of, basically, "This article says it all, and if you dare disagree with ANY of it, you are part of the problem and you want women to be oppressed," that does not exactly invite any sort of critical analysis or give-and-take discussion either. It really only says that the person presenting that point of view does not have the ability to make a cogent argument and engage in discussion in the first place.

But, again, the latter point is a fairly minor one. The main point is just that there was very little there substantively to begin with.

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement.

It is a difficult issue with VERY strong concerns on both sides of it. And that can make it difficult to discuss. But not necessarily. It just depends on whether the two sides are willing to truly discuss it. I know I have had some very good discussions on the topic in the past, both hear and in face-to-face conversations with people. But that cannot really happen where the logic (i.e., lack thereof) on one or both sides boils down to logic that is the equivalent of Internet memes.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 10:20:14 AM by bosk1 »

Logged

"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

I don't think that should be ignored/dismissed because of knee-jerk reactions to a couple "hurtful" sentences.

I didn't see any "hurtful sentences." I'm not sure who would be "hurt" by reading anything in that article.

I couldn't think of a better word. I was referring to the article saying pregnancies are 100% men's faults, which is a statement that will immediately rile up a lot of people. It's....provoking? Offensive? It rustles jimmies? This is a situation when I can't exactly remember the right word, but it's a statement that evokes a strong negative response in people very quickly.

And personally, I find that to be very worthy of discussion, especially when it's the only voice coming from a demographic in this situation. I really don't necessarily agree with it either, but I think there's a lot of good in trying to understand why people think that way.

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Of course it is; but "picking through" shouldn't mean "agree with". "[P]icking through" should allow for reasoned, rational disagreement. My beef with that article isn't about "women" in any way, and my reaction would have been no different if the author's name was "Bob Manly"; it's about the use of the word "blame" and the allocation of 100% of that blame in one direction with no consideration - in fact, an explicit REJECTION of any consideration - of the circumstances.

I think the other aspect of this, and it's not exclusive to "abortion" as a subject, is the propensity these days to demand black and white, with little consideration for degrees of grey. For example, "abortion is murder" and "a bunch of men trying to control women" are not mutually exclusive. We've really gotten away from letting people make their own decisions good or bad. I don't need government telling me what decisions I SHOULD make, only, perhaps, in the interest of the greater good, what decisions are available to me. I don't think it occurs to a lot of people that because THEY think a certain way that it is perfectly acceptable for someone else to think the opposite.

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Agreed.

Last night's silliness aside (which I am sure most of you realize was shtick, apologies if it derailed the thread), extreme and hyperbolic statements on abortion always make me roll my eyes. Heck, I think abortion should be legal, but saying, "it is men trying to control the bodies of women," sounds like crazy talk. I find it fascinating, and kinda sad, that some on the far left are so in favor of protecting all of the non-American children suffering because of what is going on at the southern border, but they have so little regard for unborn American children. And of course that goes both ways, when you think of those on the far right who don't care about the kids being torn from their parents after crossing the border, but care about the unborn kids. The whole thing is maddening.

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Agreed.

Last night's silliness aside (which I am sure most of you realize was shtick, apologies if it derailed the thread), extreme and hyperbolic statements on abortion always make me roll my eyes. Heck, I think abortion should be legal, but saying, "it is men trying to control the bodies of women," sounds like crazy talk. I find it fascinating, and kinda sad, that some on the far left are so in favor of protecting all of the non-American children suffering because of what is going on at the southern border, but they have so little regard for unborn American children. And of course that goes both ways, when you think of those on the far right who don't care about the kids being torn from their parents after crossing the border, but care about the unborn kids. The whole thing is maddening.

Don't misconstrue someone like myself who is pro-choice as being unconcerned about the unborn. To me there's an argument to be made for protecting children from being born into a shitty life. None of us ask to be born and we have zero input into how things will go once it happens. When looking at people who are unwilling an unable to care for someone for the next 18 years, who are we to say that their progeny would prefer existence with a highly questionable outcome over nonexistence?

Logged

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows. E.F. Benson

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Agreed.

Last night's silliness aside (which I am sure most of you realize was shtick, apologies if it derailed the thread), extreme and hyperbolic statements on abortion always make me roll my eyes. Heck, I think abortion should be legal, but saying, "it is men trying to control the bodies of women," sounds like crazy talk. I find it fascinating, and kinda sad, that some on the far left are so in favor of protecting all of the non-American children suffering because of what is going on at the southern border, but they have so little regard for unborn American children. And of course that goes both ways, when you think of those on the far right who don't care about the kids being torn from their parents after crossing the border, but care about the unborn kids. The whole thing is maddening.

Don't misconstrue someone like myself who is pro-choice as being unconcerned about the unborn. To me there's an argument to be made for protecting children from being born into a shitty life. None of us ask to be born and we have zero input into how things will go once it happens. When looking at people who are unwilling an unable to care for someone for the next 18 years, who are we to say that their progeny would prefer existence with a highly questionable outcome over nonexistence?

Who's to say what that shitty life is though? Shitty is relative. A person born into extreme affluence might see a middle-class childhood as shitty, etc.

If we are okay saying that nonexistence is better than existence with a highly questionable outcome, doesn't that apply to a wide range of human existence and not just the ability of the parents wanting and able to care for children? Does it not apply to those with disabilities and disorders and diseases and all other manners of highly questionable outcomes?

Furthermore, there are also plenty of parents out there that are perfectly willing to have many children, knowing perfectly well that they will be born into bad situations, or knowing that they will be unable to care for their children. Should they be allowed to have children?

Sure, if one looks at the outcomes and crunches the numbers, those born into undesirable and uncared for situations might likely have a higher percentage of unhappiness, crime, less success in life. Say only 5% succeed. 100% of those births have a chance at life and success though.

Over all abortion is a very tough thing to discuss for people since on both sides, their beliefs are held at an extremely deep level. That's fascinating to me. It's abortion is murder vs "why are a bunch of men trying to control women". The conversation never seems to really come to a head because everyone is talking around each other and making strawmen or false equivalencies and refusing to even get past the first few levels of disagreement. This thread shows all of that. Now I'm just rambling, but my point is that, even an article like that is worth picking through to understand the perspective of others imo.

Agreed.

Last night's silliness aside (which I am sure most of you realize was shtick, apologies if it derailed the thread), extreme and hyperbolic statements on abortion always make me roll my eyes. Heck, I think abortion should be legal, but saying, "it is men trying to control the bodies of women," sounds like crazy talk. I find it fascinating, and kinda sad, that some on the far left are so in favor of protecting all of the non-American children suffering because of what is going on at the southern border, but they have so little regard for unborn American children. And of course that goes both ways, when you think of those on the far right who don't care about the kids being torn from their parents after crossing the border, but care about the unborn kids. The whole thing is maddening.

Don't misconstrue someone like myself who is pro-choice as being unconcerned about the unborn. To me there's an argument to be made for protecting children from being born into a shitty life. None of us ask to be born and we have zero input into how things will go once it happens. When looking at people who are unwilling an unable to care for someone for the next 18 years, who are we to say that their progeny would prefer existence with a highly questionable outcome over nonexistence?

Who's to say what that shitty life is though? Shitty is relative. A person born into extreme affluence might see a middle-class childhood as shitty, etc.

I agree.

Quote

If we are okay saying that nonexistence is better than existence with a highly questionable outcome, doesn't that apply to a wide range of human existence and not just the ability of the parents wanting and able to care for children? Does it not apply to those with disabilities and disorders and diseases and all other manners of highly questionable outcomes?

Absolutely it does.

Quote

Sure, if one looks at the outcomes and crunches the numbers, those born into undesirable and uncared for situations might likely have a higher percentage of unhappiness, crime, less success in life. Say only 5% succeed. 100% of those births have a chance at life and success though.

Sounds about right.

This is kind of my point. I'm not suggesting that we can determine who should or should not be born based on a prediction of how things will go. I am suggesting that the idea that every conception must result in a child who may or may not want the existence they're born into is similarly misguided. Is it any more right to force existence on somebody than it is to deny them existence?

Quote

Furthermore, there are also plenty of parents out there that are perfectly willing to have many children, knowing perfectly well that they will be born into bad situations, or knowing that they will be unable to care for their children. Should they be allowed to have children?

The mill's closed! There's no more work. We're destitute. I've got no option but to sell you all for scientific experiments.

I'd probably try to talk them out of it, but I'm not comfortable telling people they can't procreate. I'd want them kept on a very short leash, though. Just remember that if we're willing to allow people to do such a thing we have to be just as willing to foot the bill for their irresponsibility.

Logged

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows. E.F. Benson

That baby could be carried to term and adopted by a couple who for whatever can't conceive a child of their own.

Whenever I hear this argument, there is something I wonder about. I hope you will humor me here.

How would you feel if such pregnancies and adoptions were funded by taxpayers?

Here's my thought process: if a woman wants an abortion and the law forbids it, then (assuming she follows the law, of course) she is essentially obligated to carry her baby to term against her wishes. I'll accept it as given here that the woman is pregnant because she had consensual unprotected sex. I will also accept as given (though I don't necessarily agree with it) the argument that any discomfort or health issues she experiences during the pregnancy will be deserved because they will be a result of her own irresponsible choices. But what of the expenses? According to parents.com, the average U.S. hospital delivery costs $3,500. That number excludes prenatal, delivery-related and post-partum healthcare - after factoring those in, the average birth apparently costs $8,802. In most cases, it also causes lost wages, since mothers usually need to miss some work while they're pregnant. So, there's a bill for $8,800 and loss of income. This is not to mention actual adoption fees, which, according to creatingafamily.org (yes, I'm getting these from Google searches - feel free to dispute my numbers if you have better sources), can be upwards of $30,000.

Should the birth mother, who is being obligated to carry this child to term against her wishes, also be obligated to shoulder all of the financial costs? If not, who should? It seems to me that if we, as a society, decide that we cannot morally tolerate abortion, then we, as a society, should have some idea what to do about the costs associated with upholding our morality.

I realize it may seem callous or shallow to bring up finances in a discussion about the lives of unborn children. But it is a practical consideration, and I'm curious as to your perspective: if the law dictates that women must go through with pregnancies they can't necessarily afford, who is going to pay to make sure that these children are taken care of after they are born? Who is going to pay to make sure they get the medical care they need? Who is going to pay to make sure they get adopted rather than ending up on the street or in foster care?

I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives.

I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives.

This is one of my main gripes about people (not people in this thread, people in general) who are so strongly, almost in a dogmatic way, against abortion: all they care about is to protect the abstract concept of "life", as when they oppose euthanasia, and they don't care about the quality of said life.

In countries with low nativity rates there are political discussion of financial incentives and support to encourage people to have more children; to make a specific example, I've heard on the news the other day of a factory owner who promised an additional bonus for 7 years to any employee who would have children. At the same time, I agree on the general condition (of course put all of this into a realistic law is a long and hard road) that if you insist so much on having women not use abortions, you should properly encourage them, also financially, to carry the child to term.

I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives.

This is one of my main gripes about people (not people in this thread, people in general) who are so strongly, almost in a dogmatic way, against abortion: all they care about is to protect the abstract concept of "life", as when they oppose euthanasia, and they don't care about the quality of said life.

In countries with low nativity rates there are political discussion of financial incentives and support to encourage people to have more children; to make a specific example, I've heard on the news the other day of a factory owner who promised an additional bonus for 7 years to any employee who would have children. At the same time, I agree on the general condition (of course put all of this into a realistic law is a long and hard road) that if you insist so much on having women not use abortions, you should properly encourage them, also financially, to carry the child to term.

I get it, and I applaud the notion, but there's a RIGHT here. The RIGHT to life. There's not a corresponding "right" to any of the other things that flow from that. We don't require advocates of other laws to correspondingly pony up financially to justify their position. And we shouldn't here.

I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives.

This is one of my main gripes about people (not people in this thread, people in general) who are so strongly, almost in a dogmatic way, against abortion: all they care about is to protect the abstract concept of "life", as when they oppose euthanasia, and they don't care about the quality of said life.

In countries with low nativity rates there are political discussion of financial incentives and support to encourage people to have more children; to make a specific example, I've heard on the news the other day of a factory owner who promised an additional bonus for 7 years to any employee who would have children. At the same time, I agree on the general condition (of course put all of this into a realistic law is a long and hard road) that if you insist so much on having women not use abortions, you should properly encourage them, also financially, to carry the child to term.

I get it, and I applaud the notion, but there's a RIGHT here. The RIGHT to life. There's not a corresponding "right" to any of the other things that flow from that. We don't require advocates of other laws to correspondingly pony up financially to justify their position. And we shouldn't here.

That's perfectly reasonable, but are we any closer to solving the issue that Jaffa brings up? Namely, regardless of whether pro-life advocates "pony up" or not, there remains a financial burden that many women won't be able to carry. The impact of that burden—on mother, baby, and ultimately society as a whole, needs to be addressed.

I'm not suggesting that pro-lifers should pay that bill, but I'd love to hear some practical ideas from that camp. Instead (and, to be clear, this isn't directed at you in particular) we mostly get moral posturing. It's the principle obstacle, in this and seemingly every other polarized debate of consequence: too much moral posturing. Too many (on both sides) committed to ignoring the practical questions. Liberals are always (and I think rightfully) picked on for this, particularly as it relates to identity politics, but conservatives aren't any better when it comes to abortion.

I have no idea whether life begins at conception or whether a woman has a moral right to kill the human life inside her, but some consistency would be nice. Surely the pro-life argument ought to consider the consequences of life, both during and beyond pregnancy, right?

Logged

Quote from: black_floyd

Oh seneca, how you've warmed my heart this evening.

Quote from: Cyril

I'm going to fall on top of you if I do and we'll both go down together

I would start with an overhaul of the adoption industry. Because, that’s what it’s become.....an industry. It costs anywhere from $10-40k to adopt a child depending on the variables like where from, how ‘selective’ you are etc etc.

It shouldn’t cost that much to adopt a child. For instance, my wife and I have thought many times about adopting but simply cannot afford to drop $15-20k on being able to provide a stable, loving home to a child.

I think were the adoption process more streamlined and less expensive there’d be more of a ‘demand’ from families to adopt children. Just my opinion though.

I have no idea whether life begins at conception or whether a woman has a moral right to kill the human life inside her, but some consistency would be nice. Surely the pro-life argument ought to consider the consequences of life, both during and beyond pregnancy, right?

I am a lot less understanding to the left than you are - they are the party of "morals" after all - but on this point we could not agree more. I have a HUGE problem with the inconsistency of BOTH sides across the board.

It's sort of like the resurgence in the media of the Kavanaugh hearings; there was a headline today (I forget what outlet) that noted just that: "in the wake of Kavanaugh's confirmation, abortion is at the forefront of our political discourse" or something like that. but that's disingenuous. Because we're not at that point because of Kavanaugh, or even the Supreme Court. We're here because of a law that pushes the boundaries of abortion availability to their utmost. LITERALLY. To the point of birth. Even if the Court does curtail that law, it's not at all a case of the court "exerting their will" regarding abortion. But anything for a sound bite or photo op....

I would start with an overhaul of the adoption industry. Because, that’s what it’s become.....an industry. It costs anywhere from $10-40k to adopt a child depending on the variables like where from, how ‘selective’ you are etc etc.

It shouldn’t cost that much to adopt a child. For instance, my wife and I have thought many times about adopting but simply cannot afford to drop $15-20k on being able to provide a stable, loving home to a child.

I think were the adoption process more streamlined and less expensive there’d be more of a ‘demand’ from families to adopt children. Just my opinion though.

I've been reading from a distance here, but this is the best "outside" point I've heard. It's irrelevant what someone "feels" when we have legitimate problems like this. And honestly, I had no idea it costs that much. Adoption is one of the most important avenues we have regarding the welfare of children, and the idea is still a slave to the SYSTEM.

I would start with an overhaul of the adoption industry. Because, that’s what it’s become.....an industry. It costs anywhere from $10-40k to adopt a child depending on the variables like where from, how ‘selective’ you are etc etc.

It shouldn’t cost that much to adopt a child. For instance, my wife and I have thought many times about adopting but simply cannot afford to drop $15-20k on being able to provide a stable, loving home to a child.

I think were the adoption process more streamlined and less expensive there’d be more of a ‘demand’ from families to adopt children. Just my opinion though.

I've been reading from a distance here, but this is the best "outside" point I've heard. It's irrelevant what someone "feels" when we have legitimate problems like this. And honestly, I had no idea it costs that much. Adoption is one of the most important avenues we have regarding the welfare of children, and the idea is still a slave to the SYSTEM.

I'm as much a capitalist as anyone here, and I almost always opt for government to stay the f*** out of things, but I'd have zero problem if abortions were free - read: subsidized by the government. I'd rather pay for that as a taxpayer than 90% of the nonsense I'm paying for now. Why not pay for parents (or would-be parents) that DESPERATELY want to be parents, than paying to FORCE someone who doesn't want to to pay for insurance? Or force companies - who shouldn't be in the healthcare business to begin with - to pay for abortions and/or contraception. (Not at all to say that healthcare shouldn't pay for abortions and/or contraception; they should. But if you want a comprehensive program for women's health and the well-being of EVERYBODY, then you have to cover all the bases).

That baby could be carried to term and adopted by a couple who for whatever can't conceive a child of their own.

Whenever I hear this argument, there is something I wonder about. I hope you will humor me here.

How would you feel if such pregnancies and adoptions were funded by taxpayers?

Here's my thought process: if a woman wants an abortion and the law forbids it, then (assuming she follows the law, of course) she is essentially obligated to carry her baby to term against her wishes. I'll accept it as given here that the woman is pregnant because she had consensual unprotected sex. I will also accept as given (though I don't necessarily agree with it) the argument that any discomfort or health issues she experiences during the pregnancy will be deserved because they will be a result of her own irresponsible choices. But what of the expenses? According to parents.com, the average U.S. hospital delivery costs $3,500. That number excludes prenatal, delivery-related and post-partum healthcare - after factoring those in, the average birth apparently costs $8,802. In most cases, it also causes lost wages, since mothers usually need to miss some work while they're pregnant. So, there's a bill for $8,800 and loss of income. This is not to mention actual adoption fees, which, according to creatingafamily.org (yes, I'm getting these from Google searches - feel free to dispute my numbers if you have better sources), can be upwards of $30,000.

Should the birth mother, who is being obligated to carry this child to term against her wishes, also be obligated to shoulder all of the financial costs? If not, who should? It seems to me that if we, as a society, decide that we cannot morally tolerate abortion, then we, as a society, should have some idea what to do about the costs associated with upholding our morality.

I realize it may seem callous or shallow to bring up finances in a discussion about the lives of unborn children. But it is a practical consideration, and I'm curious as to your perspective: if the law dictates that women must go through with pregnancies they can't necessarily afford, who is going to pay to make sure that these children are taken care of after they are born? Who is going to pay to make sure they get the medical care they need? Who is going to pay to make sure they get adopted rather than ending up on the street or in foster care?

I ask these questions because it doesn't seem reasonable to me to take steps to ensure that children are born if we are not also going to take steps to ensure that they have decent lives.

I would absolutely get behind the tax payer funded adoption, but as alluded to in responses prior to mine, the system needs an overall as well. That child left in foster care and then released into the wild at the age of 18 is probably going to cost the taxpayer far more money in the long run than they would have had a nice family been able to take them in at an early age. I would even be perfectly fine with the tax payers paying for the carrying mother's medical expenses along the way as well.

Also, I'm not suggesting we outlaw abortion. I mean, we need to be realistic. Even if adoption became 100% free for those who wanted to take in a child, the number of babies that would likely need to be adopted would exceed the number of available parents.

That’s the thing that ‘convervatives’ need to get past. Abortions are not going away.....besides, it’s not like if they were banned or whatever that they wouldn’t happen. As much as I personally don’t agree or don’t like it at all I also don’t want some 18 year old girl getting hacked up in a make shift abortion clinic because that’s her only choice.

But as I’ve mentioned before I’d just like to make sure the women who’ve come to this decisions are making a good...informed decsion.

I think there has to be some sort of very uncomfortable ‘middle ground’ as far as how far along these abortions can be performed. Me personally, I’d go as low as (16) weeks....that’s (4) months of pregnancy. I’m sure that’s too low for abortion proponents so then do you make it (18-20) weeks and call it even? Neither ‘side’ is happy but you establish a cut off and that’s that?

And Anything after (18-20) weeks has to be deemed a danger to the mothers health.

I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

Yes—another of those inconsistencies that makes absolutely no sense.

Logged

Quote from: black_floyd

Oh seneca, how you've warmed my heart this evening.

Quote from: Cyril

I'm going to fall on top of you if I do and we'll both go down together

I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

Yep. Texas is a fine example of that. I'd say that easy access to reproductive health clinics is just as important, though. Ending the war against Planned Parenthood would actually help the pro-life cause quite a bit.

Logged

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows. E.F. Benson

I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school. In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).

I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school. In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).

Private schools? Most public schools in Texas are abstinence only with predictable results.

Logged

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows. E.F. Benson

I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but to reduce abortion rates, the best thing to do is have good education about birth control and easy access to it. Of course, the same people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be anti-birth control and anti-sex-ed.

I've said for 15 years now that sex ed should be required for all four years of high school. In public schools of course, as you cannot enforce that in private schools (many of which would just preach abstinence anyway).

My oldest is 12 and he has a sex education class right now in Middle School. I'm totally fine/happy about that. My wife and I have had really good conversations with him about sex/girls. I really think you can't talk to your kids enough about this stuff. This isn't a 'one and done' conversation by any means.

And, our Young Adult Pastor at Church has started a series with the 'older' kids as well. Obviously his approach is a little different....but the crux of his approach is about respecting yourself and others and trying to instill 'worth' to both the boys and girls.

That's also one side to the issue to be taught, respect for yourself and the others. Teaching kids how sex works and how to have protected sex is fine and useful, but also the proper way to respect each other in relationship and the demolition of old myths and attitudes is due.

I mean, we live in a society where female rape victims were "asking for it", and male rape victims don't even exist because "you can't rape a man", this toxic attitude has to stop and has to end starting from school, growing a new generations of people who will have more consideration for their partner and other people in general.

My oldest is 12 and he has a sex education class right now in Middle School. I'm totally fine/happy about that. My wife and I have had really good conversations with him about sex/girls. I really think you can't talk to your kids enough about this stuff. This isn't a 'one and done' conversation by any means.

And, our Young Adult Pastor at Church has started a series with the 'older' kids as well. Obviously his approach is a little different....but the crux of his approach is about respecting yourself and others and trying to instill 'worth' to both the boys and girls.